Help revamping home network

[dbK]

Hi-

Some background: I am trying to revamp my home network for better performance (and I'm sure I'm the first guy to ever do that!). I have been poking around SNB and have a general idea of what I should be doing (will get into that in a second). The devices that are currently being served are:

• unRAID NAS (gigE)
• Laptop with Intel 7260 AC chipset
• Windows 7 laptop, some dumpy N card
• Macbook Pro (late 2011, not sure what it has)
• iMac (know even less about this - I think it's from 2010 at some point)
• ipad 3
• iphone 5s
• iphone 4s
• Canon WiFi printer
• Roku (less frequent use)
• Xbox 360 (less frequent use) (ethernet)
• Samsung connected blu-ray (less frequent use) (ethernet)
• Samsung smart TV (less frequent use) (ethernet)

Network use is a lot of web surfing, transmission on the unRAID box, and, after everything is upgraded, Plex streaming out to the Roku (and maybe the TV if I can figure it out, or maybe I'll get a Chromecast to do it). I may in the future do some basic FTP using the unRAID server as well.

Current hardware is an Arris 822 cable modem (Optimum Ultra 50, does about 55-60 down and 25-30 up) and a Linksys e1000.

I now understand I should go modem->router->switch->wifi AP; my question really centers around what I should do with the e1000. I have, on order, a TP-Link gigabit switch and an Edimax AC1200 router. I am looking to replace the e1000 for a couple of reasons; first, the throughput increase with equipped clients, and second, the e1000 seems to get bogged down sometimes - as in, the entire network gets very sluggish and only comes back to life after I reset the router. It literally seems like the router just gets tired, especially since I only notice the problem when I'm moving around a bunch of data on the network. I have never tried DD-WRT/Tomato/whatever on the e1000 - not sure if that would help, but never had the balls to do it with my only routing option.

So - the real question is, should I use the e1000 as the router between the modem and the switch, or should I do something else (use the incoming Edimax between the modem and the switch, buy something else, etc.)? If I set up the e1000 between the modem and the switch, would it even see the traffic crossing the network?

Sorry if I missed including some info - if you can't tell, this is all pretty new to me!

Thanks!

 

[L&LD]

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...-charts-cisco-linksys-e1000-wireless-n-router


If that is the E1000 you're talking about; you need to replace it asap.

It's 10/100 Ethernet ports will slow you down for sure, a modern router like an RT-AC56U or even an RT-N56U for that matter will have an order of magnitude faster LAN to WAN, WAN to LAN and Total Simultaneous Throughput (all wired benchmarks) than the E1000 linked above.

Yes, 10x to more than 14x the performance with either of those Asus routers.

The Edimax AC1200 router will be less than half as powerful as the Asus routers with regards to Total Simultaneous Throughput (concurrent up/down).

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...ent-dual-band-gigabit-router-reviewed?start=3


If you use the E1000 between the modem and the switch, you are not achieving anything (with anything involving internet access) and would be worse than connecting as many of your devices directly on the built in ports as you can.

This is because not only will the L/W, W/L and TST performance be limited to the ~80Mbps of the E1000 - it will be further limited by the fact that only one device at a time will be able to access it through the single Ethernet cable you'll be connecting it to the switch with.

Hope the above isn't written too confusing: basically what you want is a GB WAN/LAN based router (possibly with good Wireless performance too).

 

[dbK]

Thanks for the response.

What is the benefit of higher WAN<->LAN throughput than my connection speed?

I was basing my new setup on some of the articles elsewhere on SNB (including under "basics" because that's about all I can understand!). That's what led me to believe the modem -> router -> switch -> AP setup was preferred.

Also - the Edimax was ranked #2 on the SNB router ranker for AC1200 routers - is your experience different? I chose an AC1200 setup as opposed to faster again because of something I read on here, insofar as value goes.

 

[L&LD]

When multiple devices are accessing various web based and internal LAN services, the higher throughput your network has will directly affect how many devices can be comfortably used concurrently, at a 'good enough' or higher level.

You're asking for a performance based network and specifically you asked for advice if you should use the E1000 between the modem and the switch.

Specifically; no, get rid of the E1000.



For the best network performance:

Assuming a quality wireless router with 1/4 x 10/100/1000 WAN/LAN ports:

Currently, the best setup would be an AC1900 class wireless router with GB WAN/LAN ports with a GB switch on each port.


On each separate switch you would try to put:

only 1 of your most throughput demanding devices (heavily used NAS, connected TV, torrent computer, music station, etc.),

only 1 of your printers, scanners, etc.,

within each switch; you would try to put the devices most likely that would be used with each other,

with the rest of the ports; all non-important devices shared equally among the switches.


With this setup; there are 4 direct pathways to the internet. Plus the two radio bands you can have.

The router is able to connect 4 devices at a time without any slowdown (either to each other or 6 devices to the internet if one is on the 2.4GHz band and the other is on the 5GHz band).

With carefully selected groups on each switch - the network will function as if only a single device is connected for the most part.



Don't forget that with fewer devices, you don't need a switch on each port of the router; you can connect a NAS (for example) directly to the router and still get the maximum benefit of the above topology with switches on the other ports.


Your aim should be to try to keep common network traffic within a single switch (remember; you can have one GB switch with 4 ports and another with 8+ ports).

(This 'common' network traffic doesn't mean all printers together - rather, the computers that use a specific printer to be on the same switch).

You also want to have as many points of access to the internet/modem at once as possible.

(You don't want modem>router>switch>AP if you can help it. You want modem>router>AP, even if it means giving up a port (the network overall will be faster if internet traffic isn't bottlenecking the switch when LAN duties are the priority; or the LAN traffic isn't bottlenecking the switch when internet traffic is the priority).

Finally, remember that the router itself is also a switch: it not only connects all devices to the internet; it connects them to each other. Take advantage of this by designing your groups so that equally internet hungry devices are on separate switches or, a device that heavily uses a NAS on another switch is not also grouped with a device that heavily uses the internet.


We can't get it perfect, especially as we collect more and more devices that need to be attached to our networks.

But the above can be a guide to minimize some of the bottlenecks our home networks might run into.


Is this overkill? Sure. But what performance setup isn't?


Compare this to how your network is setup now. Can you see the performance bottlenecks the 'design' and the actual hardware are inflicting?

 

[dbK]

Thanks! I think I have an idea now of how to go about this a bit better. The old router will definitely be coming out. Maybe I will dd-wrt it to get comfortable with the software. Appreciate your help!

 

[rorykingms]

L&LD: This is really one of the most helpful posts I've seen on here. Thanks!